To me, the most annoying error people make in debates is to dismiss legitimate comparisons or relevant facts as irrelevant.

For instance:

Person A: We have a moral obligation to help Syrian refugees because, through wars like the one in Iraq, we destabilized the region, causing the problems that caused them to become refugees in the first place.

Person A: Saying that evolution isn't a science because some people disagree about it is like saying that paintings don't exist because they're made using paint. Science, by definiton, involves disagreement and skepticism.

With most other fallacies, strawman, appeal to nature et cetera, it is very possible to commit them by accident. You may strawman your opponents views not by malicious intent but from a genuine misunderstanding of your opponents position. You may make an appeal to nature not out of malicious intent but due to a perfectly human bias towards whatever is considered "natural".

Ad hom attacks however, are a different story. Because most ad homs are a deliberate attack on your opponent, shifting the subject of the debate from critical discourse to personal sentimentality. And one of the worse things you could do in any debate (or professional setting in general) is make things personal.

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity."

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity."

The Non-Sequitur fallacy makes a conclusion that does not follow the premises. It is a legitimate fallacy, regardless of it's formality.

*facepalm*I'll rewrite this and see if you get it the second time.

Non sequitur isn't a fallacy. Non sequitur is used to show the irrelevancy or error of a conclusion. As such, it is a term used to refer to a logical fallacy, but it doesn't constitute a logical fallacy by itself.

I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog

The Non-Sequitur fallacy makes a conclusion that does not follow the premises. It is a legitimate fallacy, regardless of it's formality.

*facepalm*I'll rewrite this and see if you get it the second time.

Non sequitur isn't a fallacy. Non sequitur is used to show the irrelevancy or error of a conclusion. As such, it is a term used to refer to a logical fallacy, but it doesn't constitute a logical fallacy by itself.

I have always seen it referred to as a fallacy itself, but I see what you mean.

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity."

I find the fallacy fallacy the most annoying. For example, person A argues why there is a 99.999 percent chance he is right and therefore fulfils burden of proof, and person B correctly points out that was an appeal to probability fallacy, but commits the fallacy fallacy. Most arguments are probabilistic, so fallacies aren't always applicable, so using the fallacy fallacy to dismiss others' fallacies which rely on probability is bad.

At 9/18/2016 9:11:04 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:The Australia fallacy. It's when someone claims there's a 7th continent right below Asia and tries to use it in arguments. Most of the time, they refer to it as "Australia", hence the name.

At 9/18/2016 8:17:12 PM, Jry2001 wrote:To me, the most annoying error people make in debates is to dismiss legitimate comparisons or relevant facts as irrelevant.

For instance:

Person A: We have a moral obligation to help Syrian refugees because, through wars like the one in Iraq, we destabilized the region, causing the problems that caused them to become refugees in the first place.

Person A: Saying that evolution isn't a science because some people disagree about it is like saying that paintings don't exist because they're made using paint. Science, by definiton, involves disagreement and skepticism.

Person B: But we aren't talking about paintings, hurr, durr.

Probably tu quo que and strawman. Mostly because they're so pervasive, and so successful.

At 9/18/2016 8:17:12 PM, Jry2001 wrote:To me, the most annoying error people make in debates is to dismiss legitimate comparisons or relevant facts as irrelevant.

For instance:

Person A: We have a moral obligation to help Syrian refugees because, through wars like the one in Iraq, we destabilized the region, causing the problems that caused them to become refugees in the first place.

Person A: Saying that evolution isn't a science because some people disagree about it is like saying that paintings don't exist because they're made using paint. Science, by definiton, involves disagreement and skepticism.